GC17 names top pick ahead of time

[Keyser Söze 0]

Considering it hasn't exactly been chicken soup for us to name our first pick last year, or our first 2 picks this year, ahead of the draft... it makes it a bit hypocritical for the AFL to allow this to happen:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gold...f-1225789155396

[Hulett Packard III 166]

Considering it hasn't exactly been chicken soup for us to name our first pick last year, or our first 2 picks this year, ahead of the draft... it makes it a bit hypocritical for the AFL to allow this to happen:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gold...f-1225789155396

That's the AFL!

There's one rule for some clubs and another one for others.

I'm finding this all too difficult to swallow.

[old55 21,847]

Baffling decision all around.

What if he's not top 3 by then - it can change within 12 months

Or heaven forbid he may get injured - look at Beau Dowler.

Kinda ruins the big televised reverse countdown in 2010 after only 1 year - I guess that's ruined anyway "Yet another GC17 pick ..."

He must be the Tom Scully equivalent.

Edited October 21, 2009 by old55

[H_T 2,941]

Unusual. There must be some logical reason..... "Unique circumstances"

Annoyed at "Staff writer" too.

Edited October 21, 2009 by High Tower

[Keyser Söze 0]

Unusual. There must be some logical reason.

Annoyed at "Staff writer" too.

Weak option, isn't it?

To paraphrase Grant Thomas, that 'journalist' just dogged it.

[H_T 2,941]

Weak option, isn't it?

To paraphrase Grant Thomas, that 'journalist' just dogged it.

Sure is. Wondering if people in high places are hoping this gets swept under the carpet and no-one notices or objects.

I hope the event organised by Mfc prior to the draft (closed session) names the first two picks.

edit: - "Unique circumstances" is a crock if you ask me.

Edited October 21, 2009 by High Tower

[torpedo 33]

Seems fairly sensible approach from all parties to me. Larke Medal at 16 is huge.

GC17 are the ones taking the risk by picking him up 12 mths early so I dont see what the problem is, if it doesn't work out its there loss.

[WonnaJurah 5]

they Swallowed him up quick

[The O 39]

Baffling decision all around.

What if he's not top 3 by then - it can change within 12 months

Or heaven forbid he may get injured - look at Beau Dowler.

Kinda ruins the big televised reverse countdown in 2010 after only 1 year - I guess that's ruined anyway "Yet another GC17 pick ..."

He must be the Tom Scully equivalent.

He's certainly in the "Scully" bracket. He's a proven performer as a 16yr old in the WAFL against grown men. I'd content that he would have been a certainty to be a top 5 pick in this year draft if eligible.

I think this is a very smart move by the GC. Get's him settled into the GC, allows him to adjust to the new football clubs culture and allows McKenna to get games together with his future teammates. The latter is exactly the same thing Bailey has/is try to achieve.

[H_T 2,941]

He's certainly in the "Scully" bracket. He's a proven performer as a 16yr old in the WAFL against grown men. I'd content that he would have been a certainty to be a top 5 pick in this year draft if eligible.

I think this is a very smart move by the GC. Get's him settled into the GC, allows him to adjust to the new football clubs culture and allows McKenna to get games together with his future teammates. The latter is exactly the same thing Bailey has/is try to achieve.

Granted it is a smart move by the GC. What about the hypocrisy of the AFL ?

[torpedo 33]

Granted it is a smart move by the GC. What about the hypocrisy of the AFL ?

Yes, good point, its the exact same situation as the MFC not being allowed to announce its picks

You're going to get sick of crying hypocrisy or double-standards every time an exception is made for GC17 or GWS cause there is another 30 months to go yet.

It makes sense for GC17 to do it and for the AFL to allow it for obvious reasons.

[H_T 2,941]

Yes, good point, its the exact same situation as the MFC not being allowed to announce its picks

You're going to get sick of crying hypocrisy or double-standards every time an exception is made for GC17 or GWS cause there is another 30 months to go yet.

It makes sense for GC17 to do it and for the AFL to allow it for obvious reasons.

Indeed, it is a valid point. Glad you agree.

If Goldcoast can announce one of there top 3 picks now - more than 12 months in advance;

Why isn't it feasible to allow Melbourne to announce one of it's first 2 picks a month in advance ?

Of course it makes sense

Edited October 21, 2009 by High Tower

[alpha33 277]

He's certainly in the "Scully" bracket. He's a proven performer as a 16yr old in the WAFL against grown men. I'd content that he would have been a certainty to be a top 5 pick in this year draft if eligible.

I think this is a very smart move by the GC. Get's him settled into the GC, allows him to adjust to the new football clubs culture and allows McKenna to get games together with his future teammates. The latter is exactly the same thing Bailey has/is try to achieve.

... but that isn't the point. The point is that we're not allowed to announce our number 1 or 2 (despite them being obvious choices) 5 weeks out from draft night which GC17 is allowed to announce who it's picking and have them train with the club more than a year in advance. That's giving one club a substantial advantage over another.

[H_T 2,941]

That's giving one club a substantial advantage over another.

Agree. Some people get lost on this.

[Dee*ceiving 1,231]

Are we not allowed, or is just a courtesy to the AFL and to generate additional interest for the club and game as a whole to keep it a secret until the time of the draft?

I wasn't sure there was a rule as such preventing us from naming our intended target(s)

[torpedo 33]

Agree. Some people get lost on this.

Some people get lost on the inevitable fact that because GC17 is NEW AFL team exceptions are going to be made. You can carry on like a dinosaur and suck lemons every time it happens or you can deal with it.

Are we not allowed, or is just a courtesy to the AFL and to generate additional interest for the club and game as a whole to keep it a secret until the time of the draft?

I wasn't sure there was a rule as such preventing us from naming our intended target(s)

It is nothing to do with what suits the clubs or the AFL.

The draft is done in late November because that is when it most suits the kids coming through who are mostly Year 12 students.

[The O 39]

... but that isn't the point. The point is that we're not allowed to announce our number 1 or 2 (despite them being obvious choices) 5 weeks out from draft night which GC17 is allowed to announce who it's picking and have them train with the club more than a year in advance. That's giving one club a substantial advantage over another.

Alpha I acknowledge you're point as to why we should be able to announce them, however we certainly aren't in the same boat as GC17 with regards to announcing picks 1 & 2. The GC (&GWS) are not established clubs and require attention and exposure to grow. So why the uproar by announcing one 16 yr old kid in the 2010 draft. The GC17 is still 18mths away from playing in the AFL and these kids are 16 and as such, I would argue fill a different category. As a new team coming into the comp the GC17 needs to get some advantages such as getting the kids earlier to help them develop, otherwise it could resemble a brisbane bears scenario where real success (in terms of being competitive and developing a following) take decades. I'm all for announcing their draft selections as early as possible, as I'd argue that it helps the rest of the comp decide who is available to be drafted in 2010.

I find it laughable that you suggest the GC17 is getting a substantial advantage over the MFC (because of a 5 week announcement). As far as I'm aware no club has ever been able to announce their selections in the draft, so Alpha why should we get any different treatment than other clubs. In fact the 5 weeks to the draft further heightens the excitement. Whilst the 1&2 selections may be obvious to you, I hope the AFL ensures that draft selections remain unknown until draft day for future generations to come.

I know we're all anxious to know who we'll get at 1&2, however (not only with regards 1&2 but hopefully also Ball) we should be patient and remember that good things come to those who wait.

Edited October 21, 2009 by The O

[Redleg 38,469]

Granted it is a smart move by the GC. What about the hypocrisy of the AFL ?

Given that the rationale behind not naming picks is to keep excitement in the draft, this does not affect that rationale.

GC will have the first 300 picks so what excitement will there be anyway?

[H_T 2,941]

Some people get lost on the inevitable fact that because GC17 is NEW AFL team exceptions are going to be made. You can carry on like a dinosaur and suck lemons every time it happens or you can deal with it.

Settle down hotshot, I can deal with it. So, it's because GC17 is "new." I gather we already knew that. But that doesn't preclude anyone from having a voice on what may be considered unreasonable or an advantage. Does it ?

I'll suck the lemons, but I'll let you be the one to carry on like a dinosaur.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

Apparently this kid is ridiculously good (as in, up to AFL now good).

Still a risky move imo, as someone mentioned he could suffer career hampering injuries between now and then

[Old Gregg 1]

they Swallowed him up quick

Aaaargh terrible dad joke

[alpha33 277]

I find it laughable that you suggest the GC17 is getting a substantial advantage over the MFC (because of a 5 week announcement). As far as I'm aware no club has ever been able to announce their selections in the draft, so Alpha why should we get any different treatment than other clubs.

Well may you laugh but you're contradicting yourself. No club has been able to announce the #1 pick in the past but that's changed now. Not only that but GC17 have the the opportunity to train up their player while we can't do the same with Scully. Tell me we wouldn't gain from giving him training and guidance over those five weeks.

In any event, it's clearly discriminatory  to give GC17 the right to do this while other clubs can't!

[Adzman 2,086]

GC calling their pick now has no bearing on what will take place next season. Us calling our pick could (unlikely given that we have the second pick that is still a 2% mystery).

Would be nice for scully to spend some time at the club 5 weeks before he is due.

GC exceptions are something we will just have to get used to over time.

[Wolfmother 182]

Its not like they could of kept it a secret as he is relocating to GC next years so it had to be announced

Edited October 21, 2009 by Wolfmother

[The Backyard Charizard 1,178]

So what happens if the kid has a nasty accident next year (I hope he doesn't of course) and ends up not being able to play footy again.... Do they still have to pick him in the top 3???

I just realised how stupid that question is.... haha.... Obviously they are only signing him for 12 months....